In re the Estate of Roy

Citations

• 113 Wash. 277
• 193 P. 682
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 823

Syllabus

<p>Wills (7, 4) — Mental Capacity — Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency. Findings of mental capacity to execute a will are sustained where it appears that the testatrix could without suggestion, name every piece of property which she possessed and all the relatives of the family, including daughters-in-law, grandchildren and sisters, notwithstanding a physician, who saw her occasionally, gave a contrary opinion.</p> <p>Same (20) — Evidence—Sufficiency. The law presumes mental capacity, where a will is rational on its face and executed in legal form; and evidence to overcome it must be cogent and convincing.</p> <p>Same (17, 20) — Requisites and Validity- — Execution—Undue Influence — Fraud—Evidence—Sufficiency. The fact that testatrix was told by her husband that they were getting old and ought to make their wills, does not show undue influence impeaching a will made shortly thereafter.</p> <p>Same (20) — Fraud—Evidence—Sufficiency. A will charging a son with an advancement of $22,500 will not be set aside for fraud on account of the husband’s statement to the testatrix that they had advanced $45,000 to the son out of their community property, where it appears that the husband believed such statement to be substanially correct.</p>